The Long Civil Rights Movement Today

As I’m sure many of you have read in the news, Oberlin College has suffered a series of hate crimes this past week. (see article below) There were several incidents that drew attention: the defacing of black history month posters around campus, a late-night sighting of an individual in a KKK robe, and the use of spray paint to mark bathrooms and water fountains as “whites only”. These outbursts have come as a surprise to many, especially the students and staff at the College, because Oberlin is historically a very liberal school.

I was struck by this article not only because of this shocking display of white supremacy and racism, but also because of the reaction of the school, both of which reminded me of topics discussed in our class. The college’s administration cancelled school today declaring a “day of solidarity” in order to address the recent hate-crimes occurring on campus. The college explained that this would still be a day of learning though by alternative means. Oberlin students crammed into the chapel to have an open discussion about the recent events and their ramifications.

To me, this recalled elements of the long civil rights movement we have so often spoken about in class. The civil rights movement is often restricted to the period between in 1954 and 1968. This creates a couple of misconceptions: first, that this was the period of time that African Americans took action against their oppression and secondly, that the rhetoric and culture of white supremacy was isolated to the time preceding and during the civil rights movement. Both of these assumptions of the master narrative dilute the reality of race-relations in the US.  

 In the case of the Oberlin College incidents, this is a testament to the idea that the civil rights movement cannot be tied to a specific period in time but is an ongoing movement. As demonstrated at Oberlin, there is still a strong culture of racism and antagonism between races in the US, even amongst populations perceived to be “liberal” or “accepting”. While I am unsure of the efficacy of Oberlin’s decision to shut down the school for a day in addressing these events, or how it might prevent future incidents, their actions demonstrate a will to deal with problems that might otherwise be depicted as irrelevant in our “modern” era. The civil rights movement, in my mind, is something that is still with us today in the form of education disparities, gay rights, access to healthcare etc. though they are usually not qualified in these terms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/05/education/oberlin-cancels-classes-after-series-of-hate-related-incidents.html?ref=us

Escaping the Avenue

I recently listened to an episode from the podcast, This American Life, that was aired in mid-February titled "Harper High School." It is about a dominantly black high school in Chicago that is seemingly normal until you learn about the number of gun-related deaths that occur each year. During the pep-rally at the start of school in August, the principal makes a tribute to all the students who passed away recently- a disturbing number of 29 individuals. The interviews show what it means for students to live in their community that is riddled by gangs and violence. After reading James Baldwin's Fire Next Time there is a shared theme present in his ghetto in Harlem and this community in Chicago. To be black means that you are born into a system that unless you fight against will push you down and keep you there.

In Harlem and in the gang-riddled streets of this black community, to escape the violence of the streets is a rarity. In the beginning of Baldwin's book he describes the sense of entrapment that being black entails. According to white society, being black in America means that you are pre-set to never achieve the level of success held by whites. Baldwin's own grandfather, a former slave, felt this way, and Baldwin's father, although he didn't feel inferior and rather preached against white domination, was still aware of the oppressive grip white society held upon black communities. Baldwin himself as a youth describes the sinful pull of the Avenue on himself and other young blacks because it is an outlet for the feeling that black lives are unwanted in America. Nothing is more painful than the pain of feeling less than human in America's eye and being powerless to change it. Baldwin's brother is broken by this, but Baldwin fights against it though because he sees the wrongness in America and the thousands of black lives being destroyed by racial inequality.

At Harper High School, to escape the violence of gangs as a student is nearly impossible. The one student interviewed who is open about not being in a gang is posed to be the class valedictorian. He doesn't have friends at home who he hangs out with. Nor does he ever leave his house because of the very real threat of being shot on the streets. School is his only time when he can interact with peers, but he has no actual friend group because friend groups are usually gang members.

One black student named Devante is interviewed on multiple occasions. Devante, who is sixteen, accidentally shot his younger brother, who was fourteen at the time, the year before this interview. He is haunted by guilt and an inability to come to terms with what he did. Devante eventually runs away from the community knowing that otherwise he will never escape his future in a gang and the possibility that he might hurt someone else. His mother has mixed feelings about her son; she can't help but feel bitterness about what he did. This is shocking because Devante is not the true culprit. The true culprit is the fact that American government is not doing enough to curb gang violence amongst youth except to enforce police patrolmen and put money in "turn around" High Schools. Guns flow freely and legally into this community. Despite the vast improvement and investment in Harper High, which has improved the lives of its students, the problems in the neighborhood cannot be fully addressed by the school alone.

The connection between Harlem and this community in Chicago is a lack of activism on the part of the government to change the system that is causing black destituteness and violence. In both situations, the community is left to address its own problems, which it does. Preachers fight to keep blacks on the right path in Harlem, while Social workers work tirelessly to save and improve as many lives as they can. The faculty at Harper High asks students to tell them about anything bad happening on the streets, although the youth are sometimes reluctant to do so. What is clear is that more outreach into the lives of blacks in this community is needed to eliminate the shootings and improve the ability to achieve a successful life.

The Epistemology of Blackness

When we discussed Fire Next Time in class on Monday, one of Dr. Gibson’s notes was on the “epistemology of blackness,” or how Baldwin seeks to reconcile what it means to be black in America. After reading his book, it appears to me that what Baldwin was seeking to do was define his identity in terms of his place in the word. Baldwin’s understanding of his being in the world was shaped by formative religious experiences that allowed him to understand his blackness. What Baldwin comes to analyze is the way in which his own identity structure was pre-determined by historical consequences. His embrace of history allowed him to escape his place in the world by uplifting himself as a writer. The victim-savior dichotomy that Dr. Gibson discussed plays into the development of this identity. As Baldwin returns to the United States and publishes Fire Next Time in the midst of the turmoil of the 1960s, he seeks to discover the way in which he breaks against the identity structure set before him as a black man.

“I was icily determined-more determined, really, than I knew- never to make my peace with the ghetto but to die and go to Hell before I would let any white man spit on me, before I would accept my “place” in this republic… Every Negro boy… who reaches this point realizes, at once, profoundly, because he wants to live, that he stands in great peril and must find, with speed, a “thing”, a gimmick to life him out, to start him on his way” (23-24). Baldwin discovered the Church as his source of identity to discover a solution to moving past the expectations of his life works set forth by historical consequences. Baldwin interpreted this calling to be his way of re-working the system in existence within Harlem, to deny the continuance of identity structures repeatedly reinforced throughout history. Baldwin’s own search for identity led him to continually question the religious and social nature of the United States.

Fire Next Time presents an interesting paradox of identity throughout the book. The daily struggles of Baldwin to discover his place within this movement allowed him to travel and discover the way in which other’s individual stories and how their experiences were contributing to history. The fact that most of his interest laid in the private life rather than public shows an allegiance for Baldwin to self-awareness. He wanted people to internalize the circumstances that they existed within, embrace their historical identity and move towards accepting blackness as an epistemology to revere with strength.

What did everyone else think about this discussion of the epistemology of blackness? How did Baldwin’s identity shape his life’s work?

How Baldwin Undermines the Master Narrative

I found James Baldwin’s piece, The Fire Next Time, to be a fascinating supplement to the texts of other civil rights movement leaders we have previously read. While Baldwin is impassioned against white supremacy and the injustices African Americans suffered at the hands of whites historically, The Fire Next Time sets itself apart from other texts of the period through its ambiguous conclusion, or lack thereof. Baldwin, while dedicated to the concept of love, promotes both non-violence as well as a need to use more aggressive tactics in the face of white oppression.

Baldwin begins the essay “Down with the Cross” with a deep analysis of the notion of fear that dominated the lives of African Americans for centuries and that was still persistent in the 1960’s. He speaks about how this fear was predicated upon the total and complete power of the white man. Lawson asserts, “They had the judges, the juries, the shotguns, the law- in a word, power. But it was a criminal power, to be feared but not respected, and to be outwitted in any way whatever.” (23) In this excerpt, Baldwin clearly expresses his belief that due to the history of white power over the black man, African Americans must do whatever is necessary to offset this power and equalize the races.

Only a few pages later, Baldwin questioned, “But what was the point, the purpose, of my salvation if it did not permit me to behave with love towards others, no matter how they behaved toward me?” He was committed to the concept of love for humanity and this proves to be the most prominent theme throughout the remainder of his essay though it is his ambiguous political positioning which makes Baldwin a very complex figure of the period. Perhaps it was due to Baldwin’s relative distance from the actual movement (meaning that he was not in a position of leadership in the movement, but more of an observer) that he was able to publically struggle with his interpretations of the complexity of race relations.

             It seems as if this text is more of a memoir in that Baldwin grapples with many different complex notions of equality, religion and race. Unlike other activists at the time, he does not have a prescription for action or a plan for forward movement. I think he captures much of the confusion of the time that is often distorted through the master narrative. No one was sure of the correct way to pursue the movement and there was never a single guiding policy for how to do so. In this way, Baldwin provides helpful insight into the reality of the complex period in US history.

Fire Next Time

            After reading the powerful The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin, my mind was stuck on the first letter. The main message behind this letter to Baldwin’s nephew is that although hundreds of thousands of African American lives have been ruined because of racism, Black people still must accept white people because racism is engraved in history. Therefore, he believes that white people simply don’t know anything other than brutal segregation, or find it difficult to act on what they know. I found this message to be extremely relevant to a number of our class discussions about non-violent action. While Baldwin did not directly mention the importance of non-violence, his emphasis on acceptance and love shared many qualities of non-violent action. Another important message found in the first letter is hope. Even though Baldwin had come to terms that most of mankind was engrained in evilness, he reminded his nephew “most of mankind is not all of mankind.” I found this statement important because it displayed Baldwin’s belief that change was in fact possible, and was an important reminder to his nephew that integration was not forever unachievable in the States. 

Although Baldwin knew it would be easier for his nephew to hate white Americans because of their rooted evilness, instead he told his nephew to love racist whites like a brother. One quote in the letter that stuck out to me was “ the really terrible thing, old buddy, is that you must accept them. You must accept them and accept them with love.” Instead of having a violent self-defense mentality, Baldwin accepted and understood that interracial cooperation was a far more powerful tactic. He believed that if he could force Americans with radical love, not violence, to see Negros as they really are, that would bring about change. Unlike many other activists of the time, Baldwin believed that integration would not only come from white people accepting Blacks, but Blacks also had to accept whites. This is a unique perspective because most activists saw white people as the only problem, rather than stressing the idea of tolerance of all races like Baldwin purposed.

Baldwin’s stress on acceptance and love also reminded me of James Lawson and the non-violent philosophy he spent his life devoted to. Both men seemed to have shared very similar non-violent theologies to inspire people into action and force change in the United States. However, what made Baldwin different from men like Lawson was that Baldwin was more of a believer in tough love than non-violent civil disobedience. For example, in the letter Baldwin reminded his nephew to force Caucasian Americans to remember their crimes to humanity even as time moved forward so that America as a whole is able to confront the seeds of evil.

Did James Baldwin remind you of any other activist we have discussed in class? 

Acceptance of One's Past

A major theme throughout The Fire Next Time and the Civil Rights Movement is the need for acceptance of one’s past. Without reflecting and accepting the rich history of the African American, the black race would be unable to move forward. As James Baldwin so eloquently explains, “The American Negro can have no future anywhere, on any continent, as long as he is unwilling to accept his past. To accept one’s past – one’s history – is not the same thing as drowning in it; it is learning how to use it” (81). The history of the African American is not something to disdain, but is something to embrace and use as fuel to fight inequality.

Although it is easy to preach acceptance of one’s troubling past, it is a lot harder to accept the cruelties that prevailed for the African American race. Many individuals and groups throughout the Civil Rights Movement believed that the acceptance of African American history would only occur if individuals no longer feared their present. We first saw this belief when James Lawson taught the theology of nonviolence to his student followers. He believed that before an individual participates in a protest, sit in, or any non-violent action, the individual must understand their fears. This fear could be anxiety over the violence that occurred at sit ins or the fear that participating in a freedom ride might result in death. Yet, the deepest fear an individual needed to overcome was the worry that inequalities would never be resolved. In order to be completely present in their current fight for equality, African Americans needed to overcome the fear of their history and the pain that might come with fighting for their rights. Lawson also reminded his followers that according to the Bible African Americans were not the first people to be broken. This allowed for African Americans to compare their painful history to the history of other oppressed groups. If the oppressed in the Bible could overcome their abuse so could African Americans. By incorporating the history of the Bible into his theology of Non Violence, Lawson was able to display the idea that by accepting their history, African Americans could overcome their fears and be genuinely ready to fight against inequalities

Following in Lawson’s footsteps, SNCC also believed in the need to overcome one’s history. As a twenty-two year old SNCC worker Charles Sherrod wrote, “The first obstacle to remove was the mental block in the minds of those who wanted to move but were unable for fear that we were not who we said we were” (No Easy Walk, 139). Specifically, Sherrod discussed how individuals needed to overcome their fear of what SNCC actually was. Sherrod goes onto explain that members of SNCC began to explain the organizations history, specifically what actions they took and why. Once SNCC pointed out the inequalities that have occurred throughout history people began to listen and became willing to help. Sherrod argues that individuals became more involved in SNCC once they realized that they needed to take action in order to overcome their history. By realizing that action could help African Americans overcome their history, SNCC was able to fight without fear of their present or past situation. It is because of the acceptance of African American history that individuals and groups were able to overcome their fears and wholeheartedly fight against inequalities.

Rethinking Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is « a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment » (The Free Dictionary). According to this definition, affirmative action is a way to make up for historical mistreatments of the minorities. In the United States, it began as a tool to address the persistent discriminations against African Americans in the 1960s. President Lyndon B. Johnson described it as “the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity” ("Commencement Address at Howard University". Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library and Museum. 1965). Brown v. Board desegregated schools in theory but in practice it could not ensure that African-Americans got the same opportunities as the whites in universities. Affirmative action is thus supposed to be a means to reach “equality as a fact and equality as a result” as Johnson stated.

Nevertheless, affirmative action is a controversial issue. It has been the target of many court cases. Opponents argue that racial affirmative action benefits wealthy African Americans but does not take into account poor Asians or Europeans for example. Another argument underlined by the opposition is that affirmative action appears like reverse discrimination. It would minimize the minorities' real accomplishments and make them appear as assisted people. Recently a white student, Abigail Fisher, sued the University of Texas at the Supreme Court because she believes she was denied acceptance to this university due to her race. The University of Texas uses the “top ten percent law” guaranteeing Texas students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school class automatic admission to all state-funded universities. Would affirmative action be a new segregational system against whites?

As far as I am concerned, I found this assumption ridiculous. Considering the historical restrictions imposed on African Americans, it is logical that the State helps them to integrate and to overcome obstacles. I think Abigail Fisher was just frustrated because she was not among the best ten percent students of her high school and so takes revenge on the program implemented by the University of Texas. In the 1960s, Dr. King wrote in a private letter: “Many white workers whose economic condition is not too far removed from the economic condition of his black brother will find it difficult to accept.” It shows that in a society which has always privileged whites, racial issues are still existing. A little help from the government can be essential to help blacks to reach the American dream.

However, the American system value diversity over fairness. A New York Time article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/sunday-review/rethinking-affirmative-action.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) suggests to “modernize” affirmative action and so to rethink it. The author of the article, David Leonhardt, explains that in the 1960s the Americans “were creating a system that depended on racial categories.” As these programs were launched at a time when American society was fighting segregation, it made sense. Yet, in 2013 it may be more relevant to refocus affirmative action on fairness and so to consider class. Racial discrimination did not disappear especially not in education and employment. Though, as David Leonhardt stated : “simple discrimination seems to have become a relatively smaller obstacle over the last few decades, while socioeconomic disadvantage has become a larger one.” I also think that the defenders of affirmative action advocate this policy for wrong reasons. For them, this is a way to get racially diverse classes and represent the American society as a melting pot whereas it should be a way to help people in need. They should not be used for their racial image. Furthermore, black and Latino students are often affected by poverty so they would still benefit from this potential new plan of action.

Trying this form of affirmative action would be a good step to integrate more fully disadvantaged people in the widest sense.